A Novel Visual Field Screening Program for Glaucoma With a Head-Mounted Perimeter

Arai, Kohei; Nishijima, Euido; Ogawa, Shumpei; Hosaka, Daisuke; Itoh, Yoshinori; Noro, Takahiko; Okude, Sachiyo; Okada, Satoru; Yoshikawa, Keiji; Nakano, Tadashi

doi:10.1097/ijg.0000000000002199

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To address the challenges identified, establishing a remote interpretation support system accessible to specialist ophthalmologists and building an AI-assisted diagnostic system 13 might be effective methods to mitigate variability in reading accuracy. Additionally, incorporating new ophthalmic examinations such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) 10,14 and visual field perimeters 7,15,16 might elevate the overall accuracy of image interpretation.…”

Section: Dovepressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Fundus Image Interpretation Accuracy in Glaucoma Screening Among Different Physician Groups

Wada-Koike,

Terauchi,

Fukai

et al. 2024

OPTH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To examine the variability in glaucoma screening using fundus images among physicians, including non-ophthalmologists. Patients and Methods: Sixty-nine eyes from 69 patients, including 25 eyes with glaucoma, were included from the Jikei University Hospital from July 2019 to December 2022. Fundus images were captured using TRC-NW8 (Topcon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), and were interpreted by 10 non-ophthalmologists, 10 non-specialist ophthalmologists, and 9 specialists for diagnostic accuracy. We analyzed differences in diagnostic accuracy among the three groups. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and Kappa coefficient were compared, using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a post hoc Dunn's test. Results:The sensitivity and specificity were 0.22 and 0.92 for non-ophthalmologists, 0.49 and 0.83 for non-specialist ophthalmologists, and 0.68 and 0.87 for specialists, respectively. Both specialists and non-specialist ophthalmologists showed significantly higher sensitivity than non-ophthalmologists (Dunn's test, P<0.001 and P=0.031). There was no significant difference in specificity among the three groups (Kruskal-Wallis test, P=0.086). The PPV did not differ significantly between the groups (Kruskal-Wallis test, P=0.108), while the NPV was significantly higher in specialists compared to non-ophthalmologists (Dunn's test, P<0.001). Specialists also had a significantly higher Kappa coefficient than non-ophthalmologists and non-specialist ophthalmologists (Dunn's test, P<0.001 and P=0.024). Conclusion: Diagnostic accuracy varied significantly based on the physician's background.

show abstract

Section: Dovepressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Fundus Image Interpretation Accuracy in Glaucoma Screening Among Different Physician Groups

Wada-Koike,

Terauchi,

Fukai

et al. 2024

OPTH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparative Analysis of 24-2C, 24-2, and 10-2 Visual field Tests for Detecting Mild-Stage Glaucoma with Central Visual field Defects

Nishijima,

Fukai,

Sano

et al. 2024

American Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of Glaucoma Detection Performance of Binocular Perimetry Screening Program Using imo Perimetry With Frequency Doubling Technology

Nishijima,

Hosaka,

Ogawa

et al. 2024

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose We aimed to preliminarily compare the glaucoma detection accuracy of a head-mounted binocular visual perimeter “imo” screening program (ISP) with that of frequency doubling technology (FDT). Methods This multicenter, diagnostic accuracy study based on prospectively collected data included 76 non-glaucoma (including pre-perimetric glaucoma) eyes and 92 glaucomatous eyes from patients visiting two hospitals. Patients underwent ISP and FDT (C-20-1 screening program) on the same day. Diagnostic efficacy was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves and areas under the curve (AUCs). In addition, we compared the ISP and FDT testing times. Results AUC values for ISP versus FDT were as follows: (1) mild-stage glaucoma (mean deviation [MD] > –6 dB), 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75–0.88) versus 0.76 (95% CI, 0.68–0.83); moderate-stage glaucoma (–6 dB ≥ MD ≥ –12 dB), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.95–1.00) versus 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93–1.00); and advanced-stage glaucoma (–12 dB > MD), 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00–1.00) versus 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98–1.00). In addition, mild-stage glaucoma was classified into two stages (MD > –3 D) and (–3 D ≥ MD > –6 D). AUC values were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73–0.88) versus 0.76 (95% CI, 0.68–0.84) for MD > –3 D and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.77–0.94) versus 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61–0.86) for –3 D ≥ MD > –6 D. The testing time for the ISP was significantly shorter than that of FDT for all glaucoma stages ( P < 0.001). Conclusions The ISP demonstrates non-inferiority in detecting glaucoma and has a shorter testing time compared with FDT. These findings provide evidence for applied further studies on large-scale population-based glaucoma screening. Translational Relevance Our study provides a non-inferior and quicker glaucoma screening than existing tools.

show abstract

A Novel Visual Field Screening Program for Glaucoma With a Head-Mounted Perimeter

Cited by 3 publications

References 26 publications

Comparative Evaluation of Fundus Image Interpretation Accuracy in Glaucoma Screening Among Different Physician Groups

Comparative Evaluation of Fundus Image Interpretation Accuracy in Glaucoma Screening Among Different Physician Groups

Comparative Analysis of 24-2C, 24-2, and 10-2 Visual field Tests for Detecting Mild-Stage Glaucoma with Central Visual field Defects

Comparison of Glaucoma Detection Performance of Binocular Perimetry Screening Program Using imo Perimetry With Frequency Doubling Technology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About